Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM

[Joules]

What is a "non-bayoneting" lens?

Guessing they want an internal zoom. Non-telescoping.

 

[Michael Clark]

Every different focal length or zoom range of a lens has a unique field of view. It's measured in degrees and the hood is designed to protect from bangs and drops yet more importantly flare and stray light. The shape works with the FoV degree without being overly large and causing vignetting. I think that's correct. Some folx love the look of petal style hoods and put them on lenses not designed for that. They may be risking compromising some shots. YMMV

Beyond about 70mm nobody's hoods are long enough to cause vignetting.

At 70mm on a FF camera the diagonal AoV is only 34°. That's 17° from the centerline in each direction.

At 200mm on a FF camera the diagonal AoV is only 12°. That's only 6° from the center line in each direction.

You can tape cardboard over the petal cutouts for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 series and they will show no additional vignetting (as compared to the lens with no hood attached) at 70mm and f/2.8 with a FF camera.

The tulip petal cutouts for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens series are just for show!

The EF 70-200mm f/4 series do not have petal cutouts on the tapered hoods, though they are 30% shorter but also 12% smaller in diameter than the 70-200/2.8 hoods.
The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS has a tapered hood with no petal cutouts that is only 15% shorter and 8% narrower than the tulip hood on the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 series.

None of Canon's FF prime lenses longer than 50mm have tulip cutouts, and only the RF 50mm f/1.2 L has those.
All of the other 50mm lenses, including the EF 50mm f/1.2, have tapered rings.
Before the RF 50mm f/1.2 L the longest prime lens Canon sold with a tulip hood was 35mm.

The non-tapered hood for the EF 300mm f/4 L was slightly shorter than the tulip hood for the 70-200/2.8 series!
The non-tapered hood for the EF 400mm f/5.6 L was marginally longer than the tapered tulip hood for the 70-200/2.8 series.
Both of the non-tapered cylindrical hoods for the 300/4 and 400/5.6 were also smaller in diameter than the hoods for the 70-200/2.8 series, even though all of them use 77mm filters!

 

[Michael Clark]

Guessing they want an internal zoom. Non-telescoping.

I don't think that's what "bayoneting" means.

All Canon EF and RF lenses are bayonet mount type lenses.

 

[navastronia]

I've often been tempted by the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. But I already have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, an EF 135mm f/2 L, and an EF 1.4X III.

I'd still like to know how much the difference in image quality is between the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III (which is pretty dang good).

The 70-200 is just as sharp in the center at 135mm as the prime, but nowhere near as smooth in the OOF areas, and of course is also one stop slower.

I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, I think. YMMV, but if you see your own images at 200 and wonder if there's something amiss (as I did), then the 200/2.8 L II might be a good choice for you like it was for me.

However, the fact that you're happy with the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III tells me you probably shouldn't worry about it.

 

[jd7]

The thing you have to ask, though, is are those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount really any better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras? As far as functionality goes, they're not really "adapted' lenses. Every EF lens works just as well on an RF camera as it does on an EF camera. SOmetime better (in terms of AF accuracy).

I understand your point, and I'm sure different people will see it differently. However, for me, yes, I believe those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount would be better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras, at least so far as the lenses themselves go.

For example, the Sigma 85/1.4 DN is smaller and lighter than any comparable Canon EF options (signfiicant to me), as well as cheaper. (That said, the Canon system does have the Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF, which from the reports I've seen is actually quite a good lens, and it is a similar size and weight to the Sigma.)

The Tamron 70-180/2.8 is more than 30% cheaper than an EF 70-200/2.8L IS III, and is much smaller and lighter (again, significant to me). It is also not much more than half the price of the RF 70-100/2.8L IS.

The Sony 55/1.8 has pretty good IQ, from everything I've seen, yet is relatively small and light. I cannot think of a similar lens for the Canon system, once portability is factored in.

The Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN seems comparable to the Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II in many ways, but is comfortably more than 30% cheaper (at least where I am).

So, I could have a lens kit for Sony E-mount which is smaller, lighter and cheaper than a broadly comparable lens kit I could have for Canon R cameras even using EF lenses and an adapter. And the prices for the R5 and R6 are making the Sony bodies seem much better value thean I've ever thought before too YMMV.

I think that right now, Sony's system is the most advanced in terms of the number of lenses taking advantage of what mirrorless can offer in relation to lens design, partly because it's the full-frame mirrorless system which has been around longest, and partly because there are third parties like Sigma and Tamron making lenses for it. Canon is taking advantage of what mirrorless can offer for lens design too, of course, but Canon's approach has been to focus on high end, but large, heavy and expensive, lenses. Yes, there are a few smaller, lighter and relatively cheaper options, but there aren't many and to be honest I'm not that impressed by them (at least for their price). Nikon's approach has been to create a set of high end f/1.8 primes which are fairly small and light and high quality, albeit they may be seen as on the expensive side given they are "only" f/1.8. I don't necessarily mind Nikon's approach, but of course some will much prefer Canon's approach. Anyway, presumably there is a good chance that the three systems will become more similar than different over time. Will be interesting to see where Canon's system is in a couple of years.

 

[Michael Clark]

I had a particularly poor copy of the 70-200/2.8 L IS II, I think. YMMV, but if you see your own images at 200 and wonder if there's something amiss (as I did), then the 200/2.8 L II might be a good choice for you like it was for me.

However, the fact that you're happy with the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III tells me you probably shouldn't worry about it.

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has always been very sharp at 200mm. I may even have one of the rare atypical ones Roger Cicala talks about that is slightly sharper at the long end than at the wide end. Even when it took a very hard lick and had significant tilt the center was still razor sharp. The left side that focused closer was also still very good. It was on the right side that focused further which got a little blurry (at all distances) near the edge of the frame. After I sent it in for adjustment it may have came back from Canon Service even sharper than it was when new. I've just never been thrilled with the way the out of focus areas look.

The EF 135mm f/2 L, on the other hand, has the best out of focus rendering of any lens I've ever used. Wide open it's not quite as sharp, but stopped down to f/2.5 or even f/2.2 it's very sharp. The out of focus areas look good no matter what aperture is used.

I don't like the 135/2 + 1.4X III as much as I like the bare 135/2 for sure. I just wonder how much difference the EF 200mm f/2.8 II would give me over that, and would it be worth the extra $900-1,000 I'd have to spend on the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II for the limited number of times I could get away with using only the prime instead of the zoom. I do have far more occasions when I can use the 135mm f/2 instead of the zoom than I have when I could get away with using a 200mm f/2.8 prime instead of the f/2.8 zoom.

I rarely use the 135/2 w/the 1.4X III other than the few times I've played around with it around the house and my 3 acre wooded lot. I bought the extender mainly for more reach with the 70-200 for daylight sports. I use the bare lens and crop if need be when shooting sports under lights.

But when I don't need the flexibility of the zoom the 135/2 + EF1.4 III does give me smoother out of focus areas than the 70-200/2.8 does. At 200mm my 70-200/2.8 is probably a little sharper than the 135/2 + 1.4X III, but the background can be a lot busier in certain shooting scenarios.

 

[max]

The front element of the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and EF 50mm f/1.8 STM both extended with focusing, but did not rotate.

Sorry, I meant from the 70-200mm.
the size is the same zoomed out.

 

[navastronia]

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has always been very sharp at 200mm. I may even have one of the rare atypical ones Roger Cicala talks about that is slightly sharper at the long end than at the wide end. Even when it took a very hard lick and had significant tilt the center was still razor sharp. The left side that focused closer was also still very good. It was on the right side that focused further which got a little blurry (at all distances) near the edge of the frame. After I sent it in for adjustment it may have came back from Canon Service even sharper than it was when new. I've just never been thrilled with the way the out of focus areas look.

The EF 135mm f/2 L, on the other hand, has the best out of focus rendering of any lens I've ever used. Wide open it's not quite as sharp, but stopped down to f/2.5 or even f/2.2 it's very sharp. The out of focus areas look good no matter what aperture is used.

I don't like the 135/2 + 1.4X III as much as I like the bare 135/2 for sure. I just wonder how much difference the EF 200mm f/2.8 II would give me over that, and would it be worth the extra $900-1,000 I'd have to spend on the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II for the limited number of times I could get away with using only the prime instead of the zoom. I do have far more occasions when I can use the 135mm f/2 instead of the zoom than I have when I could get away with using a 200mm f/2.8 prime instead of the f/2.8 zoom.

I rarely use the 135/2 w/the 1.4X III other than the few times I've played around with it around the house and my 3 acre wooded lot. I bought the extender mainly for more reach with the 70-200 for daylight sports. I use the bare lens and crop if need be when shooting sports under lights.

But when I don't need the flexibility of the zoom the 135/2 + EF1.4 III does give me smoother out of focus areas than the 70-200/2.8 does. At 200mm my 70-200/2.8 is probably a little sharper than the 135/2 + 1.4X III, but the background can be a lot busier in certain shooting scenarios.

I thought I'd go ahead and share a wildlife photo shot with the EF 200/2.8 L II.

The first is cropped to a 400mm FOV, the second is a 1-to-1 pixel crop. Both have some sharpening added, but not enough to mask the lens' actual characteristics, IMO. Taken on an EOS RP w/ servo autofocus, 1/400, f/2.8, around 400-600 ISO.

 

[Michael Clark]

I thought I'd go ahead and share a wildlife photo shot with the EF 200/2.8 L II.

The first is cropped to a 400mm FOV, the second is a 1-to-1 pixel crop. Both have some sharpening added, but not enough to mask the lens' actual characteristics, IMO. Taken on an EOS RP w/ servo autofocus, 1/400, f/2.8, around 400-600 ISO.

View attachment 194153
View attachment 194154

The issue there looks more like slightly missed AF when using too narrow an aperture to me. The bird's left claw and the parts of the metal tube further from the camera are much sharper than most of the visible parts of the bird, most of which are closer to the camera than the in-focus parts.

 

[navastronia]

The issue there looks more like slightly missed AF when using too narrow an aperture to me. The bird's left claw and the parts of the metal tube further from the camera are much sharper than most of the visible parts of the bird, most of which are closer to the camera than the in-focus parts.

. . . I was actually sharing these images to demonstrate how great I think my EF 200/2.8 L II performs, hahahaha